posted on May, 3 2011 @ 11:29 AM
Is the US using our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan not to mention Libya and anywhere else we might be at the time as a cover for explaining troop
deaths while fighting aliens?
OK, I was watching SG-1 the other night, and this thought came to me. The show had multiple troop deaths while fighting a large battle with aliens.
General Hammond made a comment about telling the families about the deaths.
So how do you explain that? You can't just say your son/daughter died while fighting the Goa'uld. Or the Ori. Or Wraith. Sure, a death here and there
can be explained as "a training accident" or even as a line of duty death in a classified ops. But what about if a major conflict is happening, and we
really do have Stargates. Or some other way to interact with aliens on a frequent regular basis.
Too many training deaths or spec ops deaths would raise too many eyebrows in the public. So do we actually NEED the current ongoing wars we are
fighting for seemingly no apparent reason to act as a cover for other deaths? Sure, we still lose troops all the time...too many actually in
Afghanistan or Iraq. But what if only a percentage of the deaths actually happened there? What if we needed to invade these countries and others so we
have an excuse for why 200 troops died last year on another planet in an alien war?
200 spec ops deaths in a year would warrant too much oversight. But 200 additional deaths attributed to Taliban insurgents a year while still very
tragic is way more plausible than the US fighting or even knowing of Alien races in the eyes of the general public. Just a thought. What do you guys
think? Did we NEED these wars as official cover stories? Are we really fighting other wars?
I still haven't heard a valid explanation as to why we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan years after the reasons we initially invaded were resolved.
Maybe, this is it. Maybe we are fighting other wars the public doesn't know about. If we are, and I just made this public, I expect a knock on my door
edit on 3-5-2011 by webpirate because: spelling